The bar under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, regarding the validity of a marriage, is strictly applicable to disputes between spouses and does not preclude a civil court from determining marital status in inheritance disputes involving third parties.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

These appeals are from two suits and one counter claim. The appellant is the brother of late Raghunatha Rao. O.S. No. 172 of 2016 was filed by the wife and son of late Raghunatha Rao claiming that they have succeeded to the estate of Raghunatha Rao and are in possession of the property and that the defendant/appellant herein is intending to disturb the said possession and, therefore, prayed for injunction. A counter claim was lodged by the appellant stating that the 1^st plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of late Raghunatha Rao and that the appellant alone is the legal heir since Raghunatha Rao died without marrying. The appellant had also filed O.S. No. 217 of 2016, a suit for declaration that the appellant is the legal heir and entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased Raghunatha Rao.

2. The dispute essentially therefore was whether the 1^st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Raghunatha Rao. According to the 1st plaintiff, the marriage took place in the year 1995 and that Raghunatha Rao expired in the year 2014 and till such time they were residing together and there was no dispute from the appellant. In support of their claim that the 1^st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Raghunatha Rao, cogent evidence was adduced by her including the photographs of the wedding which took place on 29.06.1995 and also evidence of PW8, who is a photographer, who took the photographs of the marriage. PW2 and PW3 were also examined to show that the marriage between late Raghunatha Rao and the 1^st plaintiff was conducted at Gayathri Kalyanamandapam, Madhurai. PW5 and PW9 were also examined to prove the same.

2.1. The Trial Court accepted the said evidence and found that the marriage between Raghunatha Rao and the 1^st plaintiff was solemnized after following the customary rites prevailing among the Kannada Brahmin community. Accordingly, O.S. No. 172 of 2016 was decreed, counter claim was dismissed and O.S. No. 217 of 2016 was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred three appeals; A.S. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2023 which were all dismissed by judgment dated 31.01.2026 and hence, these appeals.

3. In these appeals, the appellant contends that the validity of a marriage cannot be considered by the Civil Court in view of the bar under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Since the appellant is the sole legal heir of deceased Raghunatha Rao, he is entitled to inherit the estate. Thus, it is contended that when the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding the validity of marriage, the judgments are liable to be interfered with.

4. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the plea that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of a marriage in view of the bar under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is no longer res integra. In Joseph v. Marium Thomas [2006 (1) KLT 894] a Division Bench of this Court held that if a dispute has arisen between persons other than husband and wife, the bar under Section 7 of the , is not attracted.

5. S. Bhanumathi @ Lekshmi, the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 172 of 2016 produced a series of documents which clearly show the factum of marriage between herself and late Raghunatha Rao. The question to be considered by this Court is, in the light of unimpeachable evidence adduced by the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 172 of 2016, whether the appellant is entitled for a declaration as sought for by him?

6. Pertinently, the appellant claims th